Commentary on “A Rationale for the Merger of Special and Regular Education” <i>or, is it Now Time for the Lamb to Lie down with the Lion?</i>

Mesinger, John F.

doi:10.1177/001440298505100608

Cited by 22 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the data he referred to address the willingness -and ability of the regular education field to deal with the extra workload, responsibility, and demands that students having special needs can require. This is not to say that Mesinger (1985) believed that no data exist. Quite the contrary is true.…”

Section: Other Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…In particular, he referred to the Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) report indicating that not enough qualified candidates were entering the teaching profession. Mesinger (1985) also cited a study claiming that some colleges "are responding to the declines in high talent teacher trainees by enrolling more low scoring students" (p. 511). As far as he was concerned, increased demand on the regular education teacher is inherent in the REI.…”

Section: Other Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, in spite of Algozzine et al's (1990) finding that little valid research exists to justify the dismantling of the dual delivery system, Extreme Change Model advocates would have to pro-duce proof that indeed this is the best step to take. Second, more than Mesinger's (1985) assertions alone are needed to verify the claim that there are insufficient qualified personnel in regular education to serve students with disabilities being provided for under the present system. Finally, as discussed earlier in this section, proponents of the Extreme Change Model need to establish the cost-effectiveness of their proposal with hard data prior to any court-ordered implementation.…”

Section: An Examination Of the Eighth Circuit Court Of Appeals Decisimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Special Education Reform in Light of Select State and Federal Court Decisions

Kubicek¹

1994

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, I define and analyze three conflicting positions that constitute the Regular Education Initiative in light of 24 federal and state court decisions. These cases either have established legal precedents in the field of special education law or have raised issues that educators must consider when proposing changes within an educational setting that is itself subject to numerous legal constraints. I conclude that compared to its counterparts, the "Little Change Model" complies with more of these standards (e.g., due process, limited funding, equal access, duplication of services, and quality of education). Of the two remaining positions, the "Extreme Change Model," which includes the concept known as "full inclusion," appears to be the least compliant.In the field today, a lack of consensus exists among professionals as to exactly what the Regular Education Initiative (REI) entails. Various proposals have been offered concerning both what REI is and how it should be implemented. After categorizing these proposals, this study examines each in light of the judicial decisions that serve as the legal foundation for RL. 94-142 and subsequent pieces of federal legislation. The primary issue addressed herein is, Do any of these proposals comply with the legal mandates set forth by both the state and federal judiciary in these cases? The reader should keep in mind that our system of justice includes several different levels of courts. The highest is, of course, the United States Supreme Court. Any decision rendered by this body is binding upon every branch of both the federal government and all the state governments (see citations in which the initials "U.S." appear). Decisions rendered by the federal circuit courts of appeal are binding only upon those federal and state districts that constitute that federal circuit (see citations in which the initials "F.2d" appear). Federal trial court decisions are binding only upon that portion of a particular state in which the court is located (see citations in which the initials "F. Supp." appear).At the state level, three types of courts also exist: supreme, appellate, and trial.The only state-level decisions cited in this paper are from state supreme courts.As these decisions affect only the state in which they were decided, they have been included not because of the scope of their influence, but because of the potential importance of the issue they raise.In Will (1986) identified the following major obstacles:1. Eligibility requirements lead to fragmentation, and in some cases a total lack, of service delivery. 2. Less than ideal administrative practices lead to lowered accountability and expectation standards. 3. Stigmatization of students results from the eligibility/identification process. 4. The placement process has been turned into a battleground rather than a cooperative process among all interested parties.Will further contended that the philosophy of the pull-out programs that currently serve as the cornerstone of special education was fundamentally flawed....

show abstract

Section: Other Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Other Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: An Examination Of the Eighth Circuit Court Of Appeals Decisimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Special Education Reform in Light of Select State and Federal Court Decisions

Kubicek¹

1994

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Calling attention to the latter fact, proponents of what has been called the "regular education initiative" (Lipsky & Gartner, 1987;Reynolds, Wang, & Wahlberg, 1987;Stainback & Stainback, 1984Wang & Reynolds, 1986;Will, , 1986 advocate that more attention and resources be given to developing what is certainly the most desirable placement option for students with special needs. An energetic debate has developed around these proposals (Lieberman, 1985;Mesinger, 1985; Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 1986). This debate is healthy so long as it does not cause us to lose sight of the complexity of the problem of providing appropriate free education programs for the entire range of students with behavioral disorders.…”

Section: Why the Controversy?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Students at Risk: Supporting the Growth of Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Wood

1989

The Pointer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, there are continued doubts and concerns about the feasibility of successful mainstreaming, given existing levels of human and material resources, teacher training, and on-site consultation (Gans, 1984;Hudson, Reisberg, &Wolf, 1983;Mesinger, 1985).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%